Programmers: Stop Calling Yourselves Engineers

In many jurisdictions, professional engineer has a well established definition. Here is one for Ontario: https://www.peo.on.ca/about-peo/what-peo/learn-more-about-pe...

For those who don’t care about the engineering profession, you can call yourself “software doctor” or whatever. I really couldn’t care less.

Only in a very few jurisdictions, and then only under certain circumstances. Typically advertising or offering ("professional") engineering services to the public.

I also disagree with the author about certifications and the attempt to bridge similarities with other established engineering professions.

I think what it important in this discussion is the fact that "software engineer" right now is an aspirational term and that we don't use formal methods to verify software behavior, and instead rely on changing best practices.

Egineering implies a more rigorous process than most software really gets.

Many of the comments here are clearly for the use of the term engineer in a generic form. As a registered PE (traffic engineering, specifically), I do think there needs to be a clear difference between capital E Engineer and lowercase e engineer. In situations where public safety etc. are concerned, Engineers accept the liability when things go wrong. By placing my seal on a document, I take personal and professional responsibly for the accuracy of the information contained within. It is much more than just proof of education.

In the lowercase sense of engineer, I think it is fine to say, "I have engineered this solution." But to claim one is an Engineer because you engineered a solution misses much of the point of progressional licensure.

I, of course, come from the perspective of a PE not a coder. I have no doubt that influences my opinion on the matter. It doesn't mean I think the word engineer has one and only one meaning, context is important.

To use the doctor analogy, to say one is a doctor is vague and requires context. To say on is a medical doctor disambiguates the statement. Same applies to engineer. The inclusion of context is needed to make sure you are not talking about one who operates trains versus one that does structural design.

TL:DR - Context matters, make it clear what sort of engineering you perform.

> The title “engineer” is cheapened by the tech industry... Recent years have seen prominent failures in software. Massive data breaches at Target, Home Depot, BlueCross BlueShield, Anthem, Harvard University, LastPass, and Ashley Madison only scratch the surface of the cybersecurity issues posed by today’s computer systems. The Volkswagen diesel-emissions exploit was caused by a software failing, even if it seems to have been engineered, as it were, deliberately.

Every mature engineering field begins with failures. Henry Petroski [1], the archetype of the classical engineer IMHO, believed failure analysis was at the heart of engineering. Non-engineers, including scientists and health-care professionals, make the false assumption that the practice of engineering is deterministic. The goal of engineering is to understand systems well enough that they seem deterministic but engineering knowledge never starts off that way. The formal structural engineering standards represent a history of failures along with the best practice for dealing with each failure mode. The process is iterative, just like software development.

Neither the term "computer science" nor "software engineering" is an accurate description but as someone formally trained in engineering and computer science, I've yet to encounter a more accurate label. In my experience, the complaints about the term engineering are about credentialism and the solution is to use the term Professional Engineer for those who have earned the credential.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Petroski